Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unknown ruler of Persia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. It appears that not enough is known about this period to make such an article verifiable or not original research. Sandstein 06:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown ruler of Persia[edit]

The claim of an "unknown ruler" may not hold up. Most of the Net research I've uncovered places the reign of Orodes I through the period given to this anonymous man. Here is an example that supports Orodes' reign being longer than the time that our articles have alloted him: [1]. Any Persian history scholars are welcome to chime in and establish notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up This site, for the Iran Chamber Society [2], puts Sinatruces on the Parthian throne for the years attributed to the unknown ruler. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is a discussion on my talk page about this article. While I have been unsuccessful in the few minutes I have been researching to verify reliable sources discussing the subject, many sources confirm our article on Orodes I's statement that he ruled from 90-80 BCE. That period does not cover 80-77 BCE, though I can see how looking at dates that flow backwards can be confusing. I have also confirmed a gap—Orodes I's reign goes through 80 BCE, and Sanatruces' reign starts in 77 BCE, three years later. Certainly, then, putting aside any question of the article's correctness, the hole that the article purports to fill is in that period and consistent with this gap. This post was ending with the last sentence but, after edit conflicting with the above follow-up: Numerous reliable sources confirm the date of Sinatruces' reign to be from 77-70 BCE (targeted Google book search). Woah, wait a second; things keep getting curiouser—a similar search finds many reliable sources which also have Sinatruces' reign starting from 80 BCE. Hmmmmm.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification There is no confusion about the flow of years for the BCE. However, the first source I cited (from the Smithsonian Institution) has Orodes I's reign ending in 77 BCE, not in 80 BCE. Furthermore, this Google search [3] offers sources that supports the reign of Orodes I through 77 BCE. In any event, I am not finding any evidence that there was an unknown ruler in Parthia from 80 BCE to 77 BCE. I believe one of these monarchs ruled in that three year period. Hence, I think this article needs to go and Wikipedia's coverage of Parthia needs to be readdressed. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Some searching this morning reveals this history of Parthi; (look at the section entitled "Parthian "Dark Age" c. 95 - 57 B.C."), and (from the same site) unknown king and Unknown King (II). That led to this: this further confirmation of the "dark age" and a period when who the rulers of Parthia were is unclear; which led me to this page from the The Cambridge History of Iran where it states:
  "...so that it appears that in Babylonia in 90 b.c., a ruler called Gotarzes (I) was expelled by another called Orodes (I); the latter was in turn forced to give way to some further prince in 80 b.c..." (emphasis added).
  I think what we may need here is an article instead on the Parthinian Dark Age, which is at least verifiable, and in that article it can be verified that numismatic sources indicate that either one or two unknowns may have ruled in or about 80 - 77 B.C, but that the exact line of succession is unclear; it isn't called a dark age for nothing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on comment Well, this is getting to be the Persian equivalent of Rashomon. Your Unknown King II reference places our anonymous monarch on his throne from 80 BCE to 70 BCE - which throws the proverbial monkey wrench into our earlier research by extending his enigmatic reign for seven more years (to 70 BCE rather than 77 BCE). I agree that a new article may be in order. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment³. The reign is stated as "c. 80 - 70"; c. stands for circa, or about; it flags that these are approximations and further flags that exact dates are unknown, not that he ruled during that entire period. So, I'll see you one Rashomon and raise you a Kagemusha:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have tagged the article for expert attention and requested help on the talk pages of the Ancient Near East and Iran wikiprojects and portals. Perhaps someone who sees my messages may be able to help. --Eastmain (talk) 23:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until the facts can or can't be confirmed. Edward321 (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears that if so little information on the individual can be verified, but that such a disruption in rulers transpired, then the article should actually be based on a concept similar to the Crisis of the Third Century. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Either that, or substantially rewrite the existing article to cite the rival historic claims to Persian leadership in this period. That would require a sense of boldness that you would see in Yojimbo (gotta keep the Kurosawa references flowing). Ecoleetage (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is it an issue of rival claims or just not enough evidence? My search suggests the latter. There seems to be nothing stating his date or that of Sanatruces (sp?). A couple of other sources [4] [5] - both look reliable as sources, just not definitive. Doug Weller (talk) 10:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until facts are confirmed. Editors should follow guidelines on creating articles. You said it Dad (talk) 04:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DElete The evidence for the Unknown ruler seems to be three coins that cannot be attributed to a ruler. They are dated to c.80 BC, but that might be a guess. I would guess is probably better to regard them as of an unidentified ruler (possibly one of whom we know). Alternatively, it might be better to merge the content (basically the reference and a minimum of text) with the article for Orodes or Sanatruces (or both). We are dealing with a remote period, for which historical is thin, so that complete certainty is impossible. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At first, it simp[y looked to be confusion about the dates involved, but briefly examining just the sources mentioned here, it apparently represents a less than fully understood situation; making my guess based on what I know better (the Roman empire in the West), the underlying reality presumably was that there was no unambiguous chain of succession on an overall basis, and that different people claimed to rule partially overlapping parts of the empire at partially overlapping times. The firmest evidence is the coins, but that can show only who had sufficient power in the place of minting at the time, even when an unambiguous personal name appears. The actual article here is a unsound extrapolation of complicated material, and to call it a particular ruler, even un-named, at particular dates is unwarranted. In cases where there is scholarly consensus on a person referred to by an assumed designation, we can use it, but there's not enough evidence here for that. As the previous comments just above also seem to say, we await the progress of historical scholarship before we can make an article. DGG (talk) 03:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.